As an immigrant I can confirm that the US is pretty welcoming (so far). Especially when compared to the previous country I lived in, also as immigrant.
One thing I want to note though. The distinction between Americans and non-Americans, when they both live on US soil is stupid and pretty dangerous one to make. In US it is stupid because of a great cultural diversity, especially in California. It is dangerous because since the line is kinda blurry a lot of hate groups use it to push their agenda. Like this guy, for example. Whoever he does not like or understand, he labels them as "american". While he can make friends with other people, because they are "asians", "black", "mexicans", "canadians", "europeans" -- whatever label he chooses to assign to them.
I see similar behaviour in some other immigrants too. Prejudice is a pretty stupid thing and as any other kind of stupiditiy, pretty hard to deal with.
Yeah, what's up with this public transit shutdown and not leaving your home security theater? Fight for your rights, go ride a bus or just walk the streen in the middle of a shootout.
I know one thing Glass is really good at: making me want to punch whoever wears them in the fucking face. Its like bluetooth earsets are back, times hundred.
I think that with the device like this, the line between the ad and just some info becomes more blurry. Say, you walking into a clothing store. Glass knows where you are, knows you are shopping and it may show you ads for the stuff you might like (based on the profile they collected on you) *in this very store*. I think the single add like this will cost a crapload of money, so they don't have to show them all the time.
One does not need a gun that can kill people for sport shooting or target practice. Hunting -- maybe, sometimes. (I think this is a horrible thing to do in the first place, but this is another story). We are only talking about restricting the guns that were *designed to kill people*.
Any gun can kill people. Just like any car or any hammer can kill people. You're making a useless distinction here.
Any gun can, not every gun was *designed* to do so, as effective as possible. This *is* an important distinction: to kill or seriously harm somebody with a BB gun, you need to know what you are doing, plan carefully and execute precisely. There is almost zero chance you can harm somebody or yourself accidentally.
Also, the only reason why any fake gun can be used to actually rob somebody is because there are a freaking lot of real ones out there. You hardly ever hear that in Europe policemen freaked out and shot somebody who had some object in his hand. Because the chance of that guy having a gun is much lower, than in US.
Guns can be used for a wide range of purposes, one of which is killing people, but many of which have nothing to do with hurting people like hunting, sport shooting, target practice, or tree trimming (true story). To take your argument to the completely opposite (and equally invalid) extreme - we should obviously ban hammers since they are used to kill people sometimes.
One does not need a gun that can kill people for sport shooting or target practice. Hunting -- maybe, sometimes. (I think this is a horrible thing to do in the first place, but this is another story). We are only talking about restricting the guns that were *designed to kill people*.
The simple fact is that "assault weapons" are not the problem. Handguns, if anything, are the problem. But even so, suicides by gun outnumber homicides by a ratio of 2:1.
You don't think that suicides are the problem? And please don't tell me that there are a lot of other ways to do that, because all of them require a) some knowledge b) planning c) more likely to fail.
And deaths by car accident outnumber both put together by almost 2:1 again. And death from complications from fatness are probably 10:1 over car accidents. It seems to me that the more it is the case that a person dies due to their own actions (all of fatness, and about half of car accidents) then we are more accepting of that because, well, they took that risk. But with guns, we get completely irrational about it because...they're scary? I guess?
Again, cars are not designed to kill people and the purpose of driving is not killing someone. Also, (hopefully), people spend a lot more time driving than shooting, don't forget to account for that. Plus, with cars, at least some minimum quialifications + insurance is required by law. It makes perfect sense to require something similar for guns.
... a gun was made and used to stop violence. Which happens hundreds of thousands of times a year - far more than they are used by violent people to hurt anyone.
The real industrial value of either silver or gold is negligible, when compared to its price. It is as susceptible to market manipulation as any other currency. If it was not backed up by the governments, its "free market" value would have been almost zero.
XBL still allows for an easier code reuse. You just xbl:include needed components on the page and add proper styles in CSS.
Not that it can't be done in JavaScript, but with it every library has its own solution, which makes it hard to reuse components from different libraries. So, while this *can* be done now, standard solution (XBL or not) would be AWESOME!
To illustrate this, take a dime from 1942, you could buy a gallon of gas with it back then. But you can still buy a gallon of gas with the same dime _because_ it is made out of silver.
I gave it a try. Tried to use it at home for several months and really-really tried to like it. However, Google's results are still so much better that I kept using their "g!" feature more and more. Then just switched back to Google.
I'm sorry, but could you please get off your artsy high horse and just see art for what it really is?
Well, this is exactly what I'm saying -- look at the art and not at how hard it is to make it (skill) or who makes it (artist) or how (medium).
I would be more impressed if artists would promote the creation of new art to the common people instead of telling them that they need a university degree to understand the bullshit some artists make. I mean, if only a small group of people understand your art you have missed your point. Art should not be an elite thing, it should be something of the common people.
Dude, *modern* art is all about common people! University degree is required to understand the art of the Renaissance, when it *was* an elite thing. Look at this particular example (rugs from maps): the idea actually empowers *everybody* to go and make their own! You can do it! I can do it! It looks great! No university degree required! As a side effect, in the process you'll discover that it is not that easy to make a picture as visually appealing as the ones listed in the article -- go try it.
To come back to skill, if you listen to an unskilled guitarist just wacking away in random order on his guitar over a high gain amp, do you still appreciate he is trying to express emotion and is not focusing on skill? Buy a CD from him? I thought so.
I also don't buy CDs from many very skillful guitarists, because the music they play is total BS and fails to convey any emotion (other then, "look ma, I'm so cool"). Your point?
Now, getting back to you complaining about how you need a "university" degree to appreciate art. Do you also complain that you have to learn to read in order to appreciate literature? Or that you have to learn foreign language in order to... you know... understand it? Does software engineer complains that it takes MS CS +10yrs of industrial experience to understand and appreciate the beauty of some software architecture?
Anyway, there is zero chance that you'll understand what I'm talking about, unless you go and try to actually learn something about art. I know because I used to think the same as you.
Slashdot Mirror
RPGs are far more effective weapons than guns. Your point?
As an immigrant I can confirm that the US is pretty welcoming (so far). Especially when compared to the previous country I lived in, also as immigrant.
One thing I want to note though. The distinction between Americans and non-Americans, when they both live on US soil is stupid and pretty dangerous one to make. In US it is stupid because of a great cultural diversity, especially in California. It is dangerous because since the line is kinda blurry a lot of hate groups use it to push their agenda. Like this guy, for example. Whoever he does not like or understand, he labels them as "american". While he can make friends with other people, because they are "asians", "black", "mexicans", "canadians", "europeans" -- whatever label he chooses to assign to them.
I see similar behaviour in some other immigrants too. Prejudice is a pretty stupid thing and as any other kind of stupiditiy, pretty hard to deal with.
Yeah, what's up with this public transit shutdown and not leaving your home security theater? Fight for your rights, go ride a bus or just walk the streen in the middle of a shootout.
Yeah, I know, It's only trolling when SOMEBODY ELSE does it!
Some people around me do.
I know one thing Glass is really good at: making me want to punch whoever wears them in the fucking face. Its like bluetooth earsets are back, times hundred.
I think that with the device like this, the line between the ad and just some info becomes more blurry. Say, you walking into a clothing store. Glass knows where you are, knows you are shopping and it may show you ads for the stuff you might like (based on the profile they collected on you) *in this very store*. I think the single add like this will cost a crapload of money, so they don't have to show them all the time.
Oh, you already defined cars and body fat to be guns, so congratulations on that too!
It would be really interesting to read that study. Citation still needed.
One does not need a gun that can kill people for sport shooting or target practice. Hunting -- maybe, sometimes. (I think this is a horrible thing to do in the first place, but this is another story). We are only talking about restricting the guns that were *designed to kill people*.
Any gun can kill people. Just like any car or any hammer can kill people. You're making a useless distinction here.
Any gun can, not every gun was *designed* to do so, as effective as possible. This *is* an important distinction: to kill or seriously harm somebody with a BB gun, you need to know what you are doing, plan carefully and execute precisely. There is almost zero chance you can harm somebody or yourself accidentally.
Also, the only reason why any fake gun can be used to actually rob somebody is because there are a freaking lot of real ones out there. You hardly ever hear that in Europe policemen freaked out and shot somebody who had some object in his hand. Because the chance of that guy having a gun is much lower, than in US.
I actually did not see the comment you were replying to originally. For me it looked like you were replying to GP.
Guns can be used for a wide range of purposes, one of which is killing people, but many of which have nothing to do with hurting people like hunting, sport shooting, target practice, or tree trimming (true story). To take your argument to the completely opposite (and equally invalid) extreme - we should obviously ban hammers since they are used to kill people sometimes.
One does not need a gun that can kill people for sport shooting or target practice. Hunting -- maybe, sometimes. (I think this is a horrible thing to do in the first place, but this is another story). We are only talking about restricting the guns that were *designed to kill people*.
The simple fact is that "assault weapons" are not the problem. Handguns, if anything, are the problem. But even so, suicides by gun outnumber homicides by a ratio of 2:1.
You don't think that suicides are the problem? And please don't tell me that there are a lot of other ways to do that, because all of them require a) some knowledge b) planning c) more likely to fail.
And deaths by car accident outnumber both put together by almost 2:1 again. And death from complications from fatness are probably 10:1 over car accidents. It seems to me that the more it is the case that a person dies due to their own actions (all of fatness, and about half of car accidents) then we are more accepting of that because, well, they took that risk. But with guns, we get completely irrational about it because...they're scary? I guess?
Again, cars are not designed to kill people and the purpose of driving is not killing someone. Also, (hopefully), people spend a lot more time driving than shooting, don't forget to account for that. Plus, with cars, at least some minimum quialifications + insurance is required by law. It makes perfect sense to require something similar for guns.
... a gun was made and used to stop violence. Which happens hundreds of thousands of times a year - far more than they are used by violent people to hurt anyone.
[citation needed]
Most likely someone misclicking 'Funny', which is right next to it.
The real industrial value of either silver or gold is negligible, when compared to its price. It is as susceptible to market manipulation as any other currency. If it was not backed up by the governments, its "free market" value would have been almost zero.
XBL still allows for an easier code reuse. You just xbl:include needed components on the page and add proper styles in CSS.
Not that it can't be done in JavaScript, but with it every library has its own solution, which makes it hard to reuse components from different libraries. So, while this *can* be done now, standard solution (XBL or not) would be AWESOME!
What browser currently supports this? Or at least declared that it will support it?
I still hope this can be solved by oral arguments.
...
To illustrate this, take a dime from 1942, you could buy a gallon of gas with it back then. But you can still buy a gallon of gas with the same dime _because_ it is made out of silver.
And silver is valuable why exactly?
Who tried to tell you that?
I believe it's "???" and then "Profit!"
English is not my first language, so can you please explain what the title "The Hurt Locker" actually means?
BTW, I kinda liked the movie. Wasn't the best, but pretty entertaining.
The problem is that you *can't* get off the grid, even once.
I gave it a try. Tried to use it at home for several months and really-really tried to like it. However, Google's results are still so much better that I kept using their "g!" feature more and more. Then just switched back to Google.
What is your phone number?
I'm sorry, but could you please get off your artsy high horse and just see art for what it really is?
Well, this is exactly what I'm saying -- look at the art and not at how hard it is to make it (skill) or who makes it (artist) or how (medium).
I would be more impressed if artists would promote the creation of new art to the common people instead of telling them that they need a university degree to understand the bullshit some artists make. I mean, if only a small group of people understand your art you have missed your point. Art should not be an elite thing, it should be something of the common people.
Dude, *modern* art is all about common people! University degree is required to understand the art of the Renaissance, when it *was* an elite thing. Look at this particular example (rugs from maps): the idea actually empowers *everybody* to go and make their own! You can do it! I can do it! It looks great! No university degree required! As a side effect, in the process you'll discover that it is not that easy to make a picture as visually appealing as the ones listed in the article -- go try it.
To come back to skill, if you listen to an unskilled guitarist just wacking away in random order on his guitar over a high gain amp, do you still appreciate he is trying to express emotion and is not focusing on skill? Buy a CD from him? I thought so.
I also don't buy CDs from many very skillful guitarists, because the music they play is total BS and fails to convey any emotion (other then, "look ma, I'm so cool"). Your point?
Now, getting back to you complaining about how you need a "university" degree to appreciate art. Do you also complain that you have to learn to read in order to appreciate literature? Or that you have to learn foreign language in order to... you know... understand it? Does software engineer complains that it takes MS CS +10yrs of industrial experience to understand and appreciate the beauty of some software architecture?
Anyway, there is zero chance that you'll understand what I'm talking about, unless you go and try to actually learn something about art. I know because I used to think the same as you.